In his now-closed thread, entitled, ""What is a Scholar: Michael Grant v. Richard Carrier," RfMer "Human" blithely describes Carrier as "a scholar to question, prima facie. . . . Question: What has Richard Carrier translated, and what does he plan to translate next? . . . Question: What is Richard Carrier’s specialty? . . . Question (my last): What in Richard Carrier’s work prompts his readers to trust him?"

("What is a Scholar: Micheal Grant v. Richard Carrier," by "Human". on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 19 December 2014, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463010,1463010#msg-1463010)


Question for "Human": Where have you been when it comes to Richard Carrier?

Settle in, my friend. It's time you learned a few things about a scholar you obviously don't know much about.
_____


Richard Carrier on Naturalism:

--"On Defining Naturalism as a Worldview "(2010)

Carrier's formal definition of the natural-supernatural distinction in Free Inquiry magazine.

--"Why I Am Not a Christian" (2006)

Discusses evidence that naturalism makes more sense of than Christianity.

--"On the Deceptions of David Wood" (2005)

Answers David Wood's polemical and dishonest critique of Sense and Goodness without God.

--"The Commitments of Naturalism" (2005)

David Macarthur and Richard Carrier (and others) discuss what naturalism entails.

--"The Big Debate" (2004)

Responds to some attempts to criticize Carrier's defense of Naturalism in a Michigan debate.

--"Reppert's Argument from Reason" (2004)

Comprehensive discussion of [Carrier's] naturalist theory of mind vs. the criticisms of Victor Reppert.

--"Defending Naturalism as a Worldview" (2003)

Refutes Michael Rea's arguments against recommending belief in naturalism.


--"Steiner's Challenge to Naturalism" (2003)

Refutes claim that naturalism cannot explain the success of mathematics in physics.

--"Hannam on the Fine Tuning Argument" (2001)

Explains why the Fine Tuning argument for intelligent design of the cosmos does not succeed.

-"Odds Against the Origin of Life?" (2000)

Refutes claims that natural biogenesis is too improbable to have happened.

--"The Problem with Miracles" (1999)

On why we lack sufficient evidence to believe there are
miracles even if they exist.

--"What's with the Cover?"

On why that weird painting was chosen for the cover of "Sense and Goodness without God."

("Naturalism as a Worldview," under "Articles Defending Naturalism," Richard Carrier's official website, includes his recommended reading list of other authors on related subjects, at: http://www.richardcarrier.info/naturalism.html
_____


Ricchard Carrier on Atheism:

--"The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven" (2002)

A rebuttal to any form of Pascal's Wager, a rebuttal which requires theists to abandon several of their cherished beliefs about god and/or heaven if they are to escape its logic, demonstrating in the process that unbelief may be the safest bet after all.


--"The End of Pascal's Wager?" (2006) by Richard C. Carrier

In her critique of Richard Carrier's 'The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven,' Amy Sayers offers several objections to Carrier's conclusion that belief in God is not the best bet on any form of Pascal's wager. However, as Richard Carrier proceeds to show in this rebuttal, Sayers only demonstrates that she does not understand either the logic of Pascal's Wager or Carrier's actual argument.


--"From Taoist to Infidel" (2001)

Richard Carrier describes his own spiritual journey, how he came from a background as a Taoist in a Christian country to become a fighter for secular humanism and metaphysical naturalism.


"Naturalism vs. Theism: The Carrier-Wanchick Debate" (2006)

In this online debate between Richard Carrier and Tom Wanchick, Carrier opens with a discussion of method followed by 5 arguments for naturalism and 2 arguments against theism, while Wanchick opens with 9 arguments for theism. In the first rebuttals, each debater criticizes the arguments offered by the other in the opening statements. In the second rebuttals, each debater defends their opening arguments against the criticisms of the other in the first rebuttals. Both closing statements focus on the purported deficiencies of the other debater's overall case.


--"Our Meaning in Life" (2001)

Isn't life pointless? Why should the atheist bother? It's all just going to end anyway, right? How does the atheist's life have meaning? My answers lie here.


--"Tai Solarin: His Life, Ideas, and Accomplishments" (1995)

The most famous and controversial atheist and secular humanist in African history (if not the only one of any real renown) was the Nigerian nationalist Tai Solarin, who sadly passed away at the age of 72 in 1994. This is a story of his life, ideas, and accomplishments, which are a lesson to us all.


--"What is Atheism Really All About? (1996)

Quick and simple answers to common questions about atheism.
_____


Richard Carrier on Ancient History

--"Comprehensive Bibliography on Skeptical Thought in the Ancient World" (1998) [ Index ]

A huge bibliography of material pertaining to skeptical thought in the ancient Greek and Roman world. Also included are sections on modern scientific studies of belief and doubt, as well as some medieval and renaissance references, but the bulk of material relates to the ancient period.


--"The Date of the Nativity in Luke, 6th edition (2011)

It is indisputable that Luke dates "the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is also indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus before 4 B.C., perhaps around 6 B.C. This is an irreconcilable contradiction, thoroughly demonstrated here."


--"Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity (2002)

This is a critical review of 'The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?--Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus,' by Earl Doherty. (Canadian Humanist Publications: Ottawa, Canada; revised edition, 2000).
A Comment on Richard Carrier's "Review of The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With a Mythical Christ?" by Earl Doherty (Off Site)


--"The Formation of the New Testament Canon" (2000)

Surveys the history of the formation of the New Testament canon, summarizing the work of Bruce Metzger.


--"History of Ancient Epistemology" (2000) [Index]

An ongoing project, of which only the first installment is now available, completing a summary of the rise and development of philosophy, and in particular epistemology (the theory of knowledge, the groundwork for a scientific method) from its beginnings to the end of the 4th century C.E.


--"Jewish Law, the Burial of Jesus and the Third Day (2002)

Demonstrates from sources that in the time of Jesus the Jews had the full practice of their own laws, and that these laws required that Jesus be taken down Friday, that he be placed in a temporary tomb for the Sabbath, and that he be buried Saturday night in a special graveyard reserved for criminals. Therefore, Jesus could not have been in the tomb of Joseph Sunday morning. Also, a "third day" motif in Jewish law and exegesis is examined that may relate to early Christian resurrection belief.


--"Was the Burial of Jesus a Temporary One, Because of time Constraints?" (October 3, 2002) by Glenn Miller (Off SiTe)

Miller rebuts the hypothesis that Jesus' body was only temporarily stored in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. [Note: Carrier's 2001 essay was updated in May 2002 to address Miller's significant points.] Reply to Glenn Miller on the 'Burial of Jesus' (2002)


--"Kersey Graves and 'The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors'" (2003)

Carrier explains some of the essential reasons to distrust the information in The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves.


--"Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels" (1997)

Carrier argues that when we examine the background of the time and place in which the gospels were written, we discover that "these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them."


--"Luke and Josephus" (2000)

Summarizes Steve Mason's argument that Luke drew material from the works of Josephus.


"On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay" (1999)

Musonius Rufus was a 1st century Stoic philosopher, greatly admired by the pagan Romans and Greeks as one of the two best men in history (the other being Socrates). His story and philosophy do not get much attention because so little has survived of his teachings, and this essay attempts to correct that balance by giving him the notice he is due. I have often remarked how this man's wisdom and values were more humane and progressive than those put into the mouth of Jesus, and though he is not without flaw, he is a better man, and this should cause us to question how Jesus can be at all divine, if this mere mortal was his better.


--"Was Musonius Better than Jesus?" (2006) by Richard C. Carrier

In her critique of Richard Carrier's 'On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay,' Amy Sayers' misunderstands several of Carrier's actual points, such as those concerning the ambiguity of passages attributed to Jesus or the brutish nature of his parables. In this rebuttal, Richard Carrier clarifies his earlier comments, explaining various instances where Sayers misses the point of his original arguments that Musonius Rufus was a better person than the biblical Jesus.


--"The Nazareth Inscription (2000)

'Several authors have advanced a particular inscription as early evidence of the empty tomb story in the Gospels. Upon close examination, however, it provides no evidence for Christianity or its claim of an empty tomb: it contains no new or unusual laws regarding grave robbing, the decree itself is not unique, it has no references or direct links to Christianity of any kind, it's date is most likely pre-Christian, its origin is not likely to be Nazareth, and its contents are not explainable even as a muddled imperial reaction to the theft of Jesus' body.'


--"Osiris and Pagan Resurrection Myths: Assessing the Till-McFall Exchange" (2002) (Off Site)

As a degreed expert on ancient history, Carrier assesses the ongoing debate between Mark McFall and Farrell Till regarding the influence of the pagan resurrection myths on Christianity and finds that both are right--and wrong.


--"On Paul's Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O'Connell Debate" (2008)

Richard Carrier opens this debate by defending the proposition that the Apostle Paul, our earliest source for original Christian beliefs, believed that God supplied Jesus (as he will supply us) with a new body at his resurrection, rather than raising up the body that was buried (contrary to the evolved versions of Christianity we find today). To the contrary, Jake O'Connell argues that first-century Jewish sources always use the term "resurrection" to denote a "one-body" view of resurrection, and thus Paul is likely using it to mean the same. In the end, O'Connell concludes that there are a few instances in which Paul unambiguously affirms a one-body theory, while there are none in which he clearly affirms a two-body view. By contrast, Carrier ultimately concludes that much of scholarship, as well as Paul's own words (explicitly and implicitly), supports the notion that Paul held a two-body view of resurrection.


--"The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy" (2003)

Carrier summarizes the debate over whether Isaiah in 7:14 meant 'virgin' in what is taken by Christians to be a prophecy of the messiah's birth. He concludes that whatever the case Isaiah probably did not mean a virgin would conceive in any supernatural sense.


--"Review of 'In Defense of Miracles' (1999, 2005) [Index]

Review of the latest grand opus of contemporary apologists: a comprehensive case for Christian miracles with contributions from fourteen Christians and two skeptics. Well-composed, with material that all critics should read, but it suffers from major faults, especially that ubiquitous fault of almost all apologists: historical incompetence. Carrier critiques almost every chapter in detail, but also provides both short and long summary reviews of the entire book.


--"Review of 'The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark' (2000)

This is an incredible book that must be read by everyone with an interest in Christianity. Dennis MacDonald's shocking thesis is that the Gospel of Mark is a deliberate and conscious anti-epic, an inversion of the Greek "Bible" of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, which in a sense "updates" and Judaizes the outdated heroic values presented by Homer, in the figure of a new hero, Jesus (whose name, of course, means 'Savior'). His evidence is surprisingly solid and pervasive, and the implications for the historicity of Christ are profound.


--"Severus Is Not Quoting Tacitus: A Rebuttal to Eric Laupot" (2006)

In "'Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans," Eric Laupot argues that a passage in Sulpicius Severus actually comes from the lost section of the Histories by Tacitus, and is therefore a very early testimony that the original "Christians" represented a major Jewish rebel movement that participated in the War of 66-70 A.D. and used the Temple as its base of operations. Carrier points out several flaws in Laupot's argument, noting that alternative explanations of the facts are far more probable than Laupot's account given current historical knowledge.


--"Response to Richard Carrier's Alleged Rebuttal" (2012)

According to Eric Laupot, Richard Carrier's alleged "rebuttal" to his first Vigiliae Christianae article published in 2000 is extremely muddled, as Laupot never referred to the Christiani as Christians or implied that they were Christians. Instead, Laupot has always maintained that the Christiani were Jewish Zealots or anti-Roman guerrillas (as opposed to pacifistic Christians)—an opinion ironically shared by Carrier himself! Carrier and Laupot therefore arrive at similar conclusions by different routes, a circumstance of which Carrier appears to be entirely oblivious. Carrier thus does not appear to understand Laupot's work. Moreover, top Latinists since 1866 have agreed that, contra Carrier, Fragment 2 belongs to Tacitus.


--"Some Godless Comments on McFall's Review of On Jesus" (2003) (Off Site)

Carrier remarks on five conceptual and historical issues raised by Mark McFall in his review of On Jesus by Douglas Groothuis. Claims discussed are: that Jesus should be reckoned a philosopher; that "Socrates and Jesus are on equal ground" in regards source reliability; that Jesus had "a strong concern for logic and argument"; that "at that time, only a handful of philosophers...stood on the threshold of reforming patriarchal society" in respect to women; and that "ultimately skeptical rejection of Jesus' resurrection hinges more on one's personal philosophical outlook than it does on evidential arguments of historical significance."


--"A Look at Carrier's Godless Comments in Review by Mark McFall" (Off Site)

This is a rebuttal to Carrier's review of On Jesus. McFall argues that Jesus qualifies as a bona fide philosopher.
Reply to 'McFall on Jesus as a Philosopher' (2004) by Richard C. Carrier (Off Site)

McFall's rebuttal seems to have largely misunderstood much of what I said, and relies on several fallacies or errors of fact. This essay responds in detail. "Thallus: An Analysis" (1999)


--"A Preliminary Essay Outlining Important Facts about Thallus (or Thallos), a Pagan Chronologer of Unknown Date"

. . . who is occasionally mentioned in the works of Christian apologists, modern and ancient, as a 1st century pagan witness to the gospel tradition of a "darkness" at the death of Christ. Concludes that he either is not such a witness, or else wrote in the 2nd century.


--"Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship" (1999)

"In response to remarks by Douglas Wilson in a debate with Ted Drange, I have composed two examples of how some Christians don't understand the importance of scholarship in truly understanding the New Testament, centering around 1 Timothy. The first concerns the abuse of ancient Greek. The second concerns ignorance of the usefulness of textual criticism."


--"Was Christianity Too Improbable to Be False?" (2006) [ Index ]

Was the success of Christianity too improbable for Christianity to have been false? According to James Holding's 'Impossible Faith,' no one would have accepted early Christianity if it were not true. In particular, he offers seventeen hostile conditions, plus an additional critical assumption about the role of luck, that he claims would have made it impossible for Christianity to succeed--unless it was true. In this remarkably extensive chapter-by-chapter critique, Richard Carrier evaluates Holding's arguments in light of historical scholarship and identifies several troubling fallacies in Holding's reasoning.


--"Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story." 6th ed. (2006) [ Index]

There are many reasons that I am not a Christian. I am an atheist for reasons more fundamental than anything to do with particular religions, but the arguments in favor of the Christian creed as opposed to any other are ubiquitous and always center around the historical claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. As an historian with a good knowledge of Greek, I am now very qualified to make a professional judgement in the matter. This essay explains why I find the Resurrection to be an unconvincing argument for becoming Christian.


--"Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection," (2005) by Robert Turkel (Off Site)

Turkel discusses an analogy used by some apologists to compare the resurrection of Jesus to the crossing of the Rubicon by Caesar as well as skeptical critiques of that analogy, including Carrier's critique. Turkel contends that "the evidence for the Resurrection is as good as, or better than, that for Caesar crossing the Rubicon."


--"The Rubicon Analogy" (2006) by Richard C. Carrier

Against Carrier's argument in the "Main Argument" of "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story," James Holding claims (in "Julie's River Run: On Comparing the Rubicon to the Resurrection") that we have as much evidence that Jesus rose from his grave as we have that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. There are numerous errors in Holding's argument. Carrier's rebuttal responds briefly to the most important issues. In the end, Carrier's claim remains unchallenged: we have more evidence that Caesar crossed the Rubicon than we have that Jesus rose from the grave. Therefore, the claim that this resurrection is "as well attested" as the Rubicon crossing is still false.


--"What Can We Infer from the Present about the Past? (2006) by Richard C. Carrier

In "No Miracles Today Implies None Then," a section of the "General Case for Insufficiency" of "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story," Richard Carrier develops an argument against the reliability of historical account of miracles. In response, Amy Sayers argues that negative analogies from the present to the past are logically invalid. But, as Carrier shows in this rebuttal, Sayers herself commits the fallacy of false generalization in arguing against negative analogies. Moreover, she incorrectly formulates Carrier's argument that the current absence of miracles implies none in the past--an argument which is deductively valid when formulated correctly.
_____


Reviews of Richard Carrier's Debates

--"The Big Debate: Comments on the Barker-Carrier vs. Corey-Rajabali Team Debatez" (2004)

Carrier offers his impressions of the Barker-Carrier vs. Corey-Rajabali team debate on the existence of God, assesses the technical merit of the debate, and sets the record straight with regard to some of the relevant facts.


--"The Cooke-Aijaz Debate: Closing Remarks from the Debate Moderator" (2003)

Carrier registers his disappointment with both sides, concluding that nothing new or useful came out of this debate on the existence of God.


--"Lawyer vs. Theologian: The Tabash-Craig Debate" (2001)

Carrier reviews the VHS tape of the debate between famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig and noted atheist activist Eddie Tabash. The subject was sweeping: Secular Humanism or Christianity - which is true? The conclusion was far from decisive. Lessons are to be learned from the mistakes made by both sides.


--"Review of the Barker-Rajabali Debate" (2003)

Carrier reviews a rare, formal, public debate involving a Muslim, molecular biologist Brother Hassanain Rajabali, a teacher at the Tawheed Institute, a Mulsim high school in Queens, New York, and his debate opponent, Dan Barker, a former evangelist, now Public Relations Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Subject of the debate: Does God Not Exist?"
_____


Richard Carroer on Ethics and Values

--"Does the Christian Theism Advocated by J. P. Moreland Provide a Better Reason to be Moral than Secular Humanism?" (1998)

Carrier refutes Moreland's claim that theism offers more and better reasons to live a moral life than atheism or secular humanism.


--"Is There A Secular Case Against Abortion? The Carrier-Roth Debate" (2000) [Index]

Most arguments against abortion are based on religious belief. It is often assumed that pro-life advocates consider it immoral and campaign for its prohibition by law because of their commitment to religious doctrine. But is there a secular justification for the pro-life stance? Jennifer Roth argues yes. Richard Carrier argues no.


--"What Do We Do When Some Theist We Don't Know Sends Us E-mail?" (1997)

Also includes advice on how to treat theists in public online debate forums, added in 1999.


--"What an Atheist Ought to Stand For" (1999, revised 2004)

"I enumerate the values that should be held by all atheists. If you want to know what my value system is based on, and what sort of moral standard I hold my life to, you should read this essay."
_____


Richard Carrier on Faith and Reason

--"A Fish Did Not Write This Essay" (1995)

Award-winning essay examining the difference between faith in god and 'faith' in reason.


--"Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason" (2004)

"In C. S. Lewis's 'Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason' (InterVarsity: 2003), Victor Reppert has contributed what is surely the most extensive defense of the so-called 'Argument from Reason' yet to appear in print. In this critique, I will point out what I believe are the most important conceptual flaws in his arguments, and explain in detail how his arguments are ineffective against my own personal worldview."


--"Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other? (1996)

Text of a paper published in the Fall (1996) issue of "Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines." Actually a reply to another author from a previous issue, this paper does explain many of Richard's views on spiritualism and the relationship of religion to reason.


--"Proving a Negative" (1999)

The myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the non-theist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. The real issue is the problem of induction, which is faced by both positive and negative claims. But there can still be a reasonable belief or unbelief even in what we can never know for certain.
_____


Richard Carrier on Science and Creationism

--"Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (2000)

All too frequently we hear statistics being offered to "prove" that the odds against the origin of life are so great that we must posit a Creator to explain the event. This is a summary analysis of all known examples. Carrier writes, "Although I cover a wide range of sources, I am certain that I have not found all of them. If you ever encounter a statistic being cited from a source which is not discussed here, please let me know and I will investigate and expand this essay accordingly."


--"Bad Science, Worse Philosophy: The Quackery and Logic-Chopping of David Foster's 'The Philosophical Scientists' (2000) [Index]

Lengthy critique of David Foster's creationist book The Philosophical Scientists. Many different sciences are discussed, especially physics, thermodynamics, biology, and evolution by natural selection. Slightly improved from 1998 edition of this same review.

--"Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists" (2001)

Muslim Fundamentalists are fond of claiming that the Koran miraculously predicted the findings of modern science, and that all of its factual scientific claims are flawless. There are two important objections to this claim that I will make, one pointing to a general problem, the other a specific example of the failure of the claim.


--"Defending Naturalism as a Worldview: A Rebuttal to Michael Rea's 'World Without Design'" (2003)

This is a rebuttal of Rea's claim that naturalism "is without rational foundation." This essay shows that adopting the "research program" of basic empiricism is universally appealing, and since naturalism as a "worldview" follows from adopting basic empiricism and applying it to the facts of the world, naturalism has a rational foundation. Rea's conclusion that naturalism must abandon materialism and realism about material objects and other minds because naturalism cannot "discover" intrinsic modal properties is also disproved.


--"Entropy Explained" (2003)

A survey of what entropy really is, and how it is often misunderstood or misused in theist literature.


--"Fundamental Flaws in Mark Steiner's 'Challenge to Naturalism' in 'The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem'" (2003)

This is a critical rebuttal to Mark Steiner's book, "The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem" (1998). Steiner argues that naturalism appears to be false because nature is fundamentally mathematical. Carrier argues otherwise.


--"I Was a Big Bang Skeptic" (2002)

Carrier explains his change of mind from doubting the Big Bang theory to believing that it is well supported and probably true. This has replaced his previous essay which was skeptical of Big Bang theory, "Was There a Big Bang? I Honestly Don't Know."


--"The Koran Predicted the Speed of Light? Not Really" (2002)

Yet another bogus claim about the Koran (this time, it predicted the speed of light!). The claim is analyzed and debunked.


--"Response to James Hannam's 'In Defense of the Fine Tuning Design Argument'" (2001)

Response to James Hannam's defense of the Fine Tuning Argument for a Creator. Lists and discusses several sweeping problems with even carefully-stated versions of the argument like Hannam's.


--"Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism" (2000)

Response to a short series of exchanges on cosmological creationism which explains many of my views on the subject and exhibits what I see are paradigm examples of what is wrong with the thinking and methods of creationists. This essay is aimed at those creationists who are not beyond all reason, but who admit they may be wrong, and thus may yet notice their mistakes and learn from them, and who at any rate are genuinely open to honest debate.


--"Contra Carrier: Why Theism is Needed to Make Sense of Everything" (2006) by Paul Herrick

In "Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism," Richard Carrier argues that if we try to explain the existence of the universe by positing God, we still leave the existence of God itself unexplained--invoking an additional, unnecessary entity without any explanatory benefit. But Paul Herrick resists this conclusion, arguing that theists have a reasonable reply to Carrier's argument. Moreover, this reply requires the existence of God, as it cannot be applied to any material object or collection of material objects. This, in turn, demonstrates that theism offers an explanatory advantage over scientific naturalism, collapsing a crucial premise of Carrier's argument.


--"Test Your Scientific Literacy!" (2001)

This essay dispels many myths about the scientific mind, detailing what scientific methods really are, and how science really gets done, based on a scientific study revealing troubling levels of scientific illiteracy among college students and high school science teachers.
_____


Richard Carrier's Featured Editorials

--"Antony Flew Considers God . . . Sort Of" (2004)

Antony Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century. He is now considering the possibility that there might be a God--sort of. What's going on? Carrier has had direct contact with Flew and tells us what's going on; it's certainly not, at least not yet, what some theists would like to think.


--"Belief, Truth, and the Columbine Tragedy" (1999)

Exploration of the "myth" of the Columbine Martyr, along with apology


--"The Bonebox of James: Is It Physical Evidence of the Historicity of Jesus?" (2002)

A recent find, an ossuary (or bonebox) may well be evidence that Jesus existed. Carrier compares the facts and arguments, pro and con, and offers his expert opinion.


--"Defining Our Mission" (2002)

After handing the reigns to Don Morgan, editor emeritus Richard Carrier composes a brief essay explaining the mission of the Internet Infidels, especially our focus on Metaphysical Naturalism.


--"Doctors Pronounce Jesus Dead!" (2001)

I look at a prime example of the 'genre' of medical literature that declares Jesus died, and find it hopelessly wanting, especially for their incompetent use of historical method.


--"Of Love, Brunettes, and Biology" (2000)

"When Cupid's arrow strikes, is it mere molecules in motion or have we finally found our soul mate? Carrier explores nature's greatest mystery--amore!--as well as the notion of physical beauty, impulse, biology, and Hollywood's obsession with sex."
[RealAudio, "Our Philosophy: Infidel Interview with Richard Carrier" [Download RealAudio Player]

"The Secular Web is the definitive resource for online atheists, humanists, agnostics and freethinkers. We've grown tremendously over the last five years as more and more people have come to see that metaphysical naturalism is a worldview that makes sense. In this interview, then Editor-in-chief Richard Carrier describes in plain language what metaphysical naturalism is, our general philosophy, as well as our goals and vision for the nonbelieving community in the 21st century!"


--"Predicting Modern Science: Epicurus vs. Mohammed" (2004)

Michael Corey claimed in a recent debate that the Koran predicted the expanding universe. But did it? Only if you employ a liberal reading of the original text. Carrier uses the same interpretive methods on the poetry of Lucretius to show that Epicurus was a far more amazing prophet of modern science than Mohammed. Yet if Mohammed really had a pipeline to God, surely he would have done better than a mere mortal who used nothing more than human reason and observation.


--"The Real Ten Commandments" (2000)

'What ever happened to Solon? An Ancient Greek that founded democracy and the concept of equality, Solon's work is the true inspiration behind America. His moral code far outshines Moses' Ten Commandments and would be a much more appropriate document to place within our public schools. It is time that the long forgotten Athenian be resurrected.'


--"True Bible Found--"Holy Sh**!" Says Pope" (2002)

History was made recently when a group of archaeologists working in a dig at Mabell, Israel stumbled across an ancient stash of wooden tablets. Numbering over three hundred in all, the tablets are made of gopher wood onto which Hebrew characters were inscribed in ink. They appear to contain the personal diary of Moses.

("Official Website of Richard Carrier," at; http://www.richardcarrier.info; and "Richard Carrier," at: http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/)
____


Richard Carrier Biographies

"Homepage: www.richardcarrier.info

"Birth Date (YYYY.MM.DD): 1969.12.01

"Occupation: Author

"Degrees:

"B.A. History (minor in Classical Civilization), UC Berkeley (1997)

"M.A. Ancient History, Columbia University (1998)
M.Phil. Ancient History, Columbia University (2000)

"Ph.D. Ancient History, Columbia University (2008)

"Affiliations:

"Member of the American Philological Association

"Member of the Association of Ancient Historians

"Member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation

"Member of the History of Science Society

"Member of the Historical Society

"Member of the Society of Biblical Literature

"Publications:

"Richard Carrier is the author and contributor to several books.
See Richard Carrier's personal Writings Catalogue for the various indexes and lists of his writings online and in print, including a PDF list of his academic print publications.

"Military Service:

"United States Coast Guard: 2 years (1990-1992). Achieved the rank of Petty Officer Third Class (E-4), qualified marksman, flight-deck firefighter, damage control petty officer, duty gunner's mate, and sonar technician (electronics, anti-submarine warfare). Served aboard the USCGC Sherman (Alameda), patrolled Alaskan, arctic, and international waters. National Service Medal. Navy Letter of Commendation. Honorable discharge at the convenience of the government.

"Religious Background:

"Parents were freethinking Methodists (mother was church secretary)

"Went to Sunday School, and to church on holy days
Philosophical Taoist at the age of 15

"Atheist (Secular Humanist) at the age of 21

"Extensive study of philosophy and world religions, formal and informal

"Languages:

"English

"German

"French

"Latin

"Greek (Ancient)

"Marital Status:

"Married to Jennifer Robin Paynter (now Carrier) since 1995"

("Brief Biography of Richard Carrier," at: http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bio.html)


"Richard Carrier

"Born: December 1, 1969 (age 45)
Nationality American

"Education: BA (History), MA (Ancient history), MPhil (Ancient history), PhD (Ancient history)[1]
Alma mater University of California, Berkeley, Columbia University[1]

"Religion: None

"Website http://www.richardcarrier.info/


"Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an atheist activist, author, frequent public speaker, and blogger. He is a trained historian and one of the leading current proponents of the Christ myth theory.

"He is the author of the books 'Proving History' and 'On the Historicity of Jesus.' These books explain and utilize a historical methodology that employs 'Bayes's Theorem for the purpose of historical inquiry'; specifically within the context of Jesus studies. He is also an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, which he has defended in his book Sense and Goodness Without God.

"Carrier was featured in the documentary film 'The God Who Wasn't There,' where he is interviewed about his doubts on the historicity of Jesus. He also appears in the documentary, 'The Nature of Existence,' in which film-maker Roger Nygard interviews people of many different religious and secular philosophies about the meaning of life.

"Carrier received a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University in 2008: his thesis was entitled 'Attitudes Towards the Natural Philosopher in the Early Roman Empire.' He has published several articles and chapters in books on the subject of history and philosophy. He was formerly the editor of and a substantial contributor to the 'Secular Web.' He has engaged in several formal debates, both online and in public, on a range of subjects including naturalism, natural explanations of early Christian resurrection accounts, and the morality of abortion. In public he debated Mike Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus (at UCLA); online he debated atheist Jennifer Roth on the morality of abortion. He has defended naturalism in formal debates with Tom Wanchick and Hassanain Rajabali.

"[Carrier] [o]n the origins of Christianity

"He is a supporter of the Christ myth theory. In his contribution to 'The Empty Tomb,' Carrier argues that the earliest Christians probably believed Jesus had received a new spiritual body in the resurrection, and that stories of his old body disappearing from its tomb were developed later. He also argues it is less likely, but also possible, that the original body of Jesus was misplaced or stolen. This work was criticized by philosophy professor Stephen T. Davis in 'Philosophia Christi' and Christian apologist Norman Geisler. Carrier's first major book was published in 2012 by Prometheus Books, describing the application of Bayes Theorem to historical enquiry (specifically the historicity or otherwise of Jesus of Nazareth).

"Though originally skeptical of the notion, and subsequently more agnostic, since 2005 he has considered it 'very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person,' yet he also said 'though I foresee a rising challenge among qualified experts against the assumption of historicity [of Jesus]... that remains only a hypothesis that has yet to survive proper peer review.' In June 2014 Carrier's 'On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt,' was published by Sheffield Phoenix Press. Carrier has claimed that it is "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review."

"When reports spread of Antony Flew's rejection of atheism in 2004, Carrier engaged in correspondence with Flew to find out what happened and published an extensive analysis of the situation on the 'Secular Web,' finding among other things that Flew changed his belief into there being some sort of 'minimal God' (as in Deism). Carrier also came away with the opinion that Flew's changed ideas were not accurately represented in the book Flew co-authored, 'There is a God.' It is, however, worth noting that Flew himself insisted 'the idea that somebody manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. This is my book and it represents my thinking.'

"Carrier appeared on national television in 2004, debating William Lane Craig on Lee Strobel's talk show, 'Faith Under Fire,' on the PAX network (now ION Television), in a segment on the resurrection of Jesus. Also in 2006, 'The Columbus Dispatch' reported that Richard Carrier had been selected as the keynote speaker for the Humanist Community of Central Ohio's annual Winter Solstice Banquet in Columbus, Ohio in December of that year, where he spoke on defending naturalism as a philosophy. Carrier is also listed in' Who's Who in Hell.'

"Publications:

Selected articles

"Flash! Fox News Reports that Aliens May Have Built the Pyramids of Egypt!," in "Skeptical Inquirer" 23.5 (September–October 1999).

"The Guarded Tomb of Jesus and Daniel in the Lion's Den: An Argument for the Plausibility of Theft," on "Journal of Higher Criticism" 8.2 (Fall 2001).

"Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters," in Skeptical Inquirer 26.2 (March–April 2002) and 26.4 (July–August 2002).

"The Function of the Historian in Society," in "The History Teacher" 35.4 (August 2002).

"Hitler's Table Talk: Troubling Finds," in "German Studies Review" 26.3 (October 2003).

"The Argument from Biogenesis: Probabilities Against a Natural Origin of Life," in " Biology & Philosophy" 19.5 (November 2004).

"Whence Christianity? A Meta-Theory for the Origins of Christianity." in "Journal of Higher Criticism" 11.1 (Spring 2005).

"Fatal Flaws in Michael Almeida's Alleged 'Defeat' of Rowe's New Evidential Argument from Evil," in "Philo" 10.1 (Spring-Summer 2007).

"On Defining Naturalism as a Worldview," in "Free Inquiry" 30.3 (April/May 2010).

"Thallus and the Darkness at Christ’s Death," in "Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism" 8 (2011-2012).

"Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus," in "Jewish Antiquities" 20.200"; "Journal of Early Christian Studies" 20.4 (Winter 2012)

"666 (6 Atheists 6 Christians 6 Topics)," Dangerous Little Books 2015

"On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014) ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 ISBN 978-1-909697-35-5

"Hitler Homer Bible Christ: The Historical Papers of Richard Carrier 1995-2013" (Richmond, CA: Philosophy Press, 2014) ISBN 978-1-49356-712-6

"Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012) ISBN 978-1-61614-559-0

"Chapter: 'How Not to Defend Historicity,' in "Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth" (Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press 2013) ISBN 978-1578840199

"Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith" (Philosophy Press, 2011) ISBN 978-1-45658-885-4

"Chapters: 'Christianity's Success Was Not Incredible,' 'Neither Life Nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed,' 'Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them),' in "The End of Christianity," edited by John W. Loftus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books 2011) ISBN 978-1-61614-413-5.

--"Chapters: 'Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable,' 'Christianity Was Not Responsible for Mo,dern Science,' in The "Christian Delusion," edited by John W. Loftus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books 2010) ISBN 978-1-61614-168-4.

--"Chapters: 'Bayes's Theorem for Beginners: Formal Logic and Its Relevance to Historical Method,' in "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth," ed. R. Joseph Hoffmann (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books 2010).

--"Not the Impossible Faith, Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed," Lulu.com (2009) ISBN 978-0-557-04464-1

--"Abortion Cannot be Regarded as Immoral," in "The Abortion Controversy" (edited by Lucinda Almond) Greenhaven Press (2007) ISBN 0-7377-3274-1.

--"Chapters: 'The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb' 'The Plausibility of Theft,' 'The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,' in "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave" (edited by Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder) Prometheus Books (2005) ISBN 1-59102-286-X

--"Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism," AuthorHouse (2005) ISBN 1-4208-0293-3.

--"Entries on 'Epicurus,' 'Lucretius,' 'Philodemus,' 'Second Sophistic,' 'Soranus of Ephesus,' in "Encyclopedia of the Ancient World" (edited by Thomas J. Sienkewicz). Salem Press (2002). ISBN 0-89356-038-3

("Richard Carrier," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier)

**********


Advice to RfM poster "Human":

Geezus, dude, you need to read more.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2014 06:28PM by steve benson.

Thank you, Steve!

Pack-man, I thought that you kept saying that you weren't interested in the subject?

Seriously though, that CV is a train wreck. A series of non-academic publications, self-promotional debates, and attacks on trivial strawmen?

Anti-intellectualism.

Please show us your resume, Human. Surely it will demonstrate a

much higher degree of intellectualism than Mr. Carrier's. I also

call upon bona dea to do the same.

You are asking for personal information in an anonymous forum? Really?

I can't imagine you'd get a positive response.

. . . that there really was a so-called "historical Jesus."

Did you actually bother reading Carrier's academic creeds--and how do yours compare?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 12:06AM by steve benson.

Flanders is gonna come back and reveal his CV. You will be sorry then Mr. Bensen. Go ahead Flandeers, Bona Dea, and Human... Show him your Credentials. You kill Carrier, Price, Loftus, acharyus s., etc with your street cred. Shown them your stuff! Show Benson "what four!"

HH =)

Perhaps my bad for not being clearer in my response to WBF.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2014 07:25PM by flanders.

Doubt everyone... It's just that you are right in this case. ;)


HH =)

He was putting Jesus into the same category as other characters of questionable historicity and asking forum participants what they thought of their "existence," as well:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1461375,1461375#msg-1461375


You need to pick up a bit on Richard's well-honed wicked wit and subtle sarcasm. Really.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2014 07:26PM by steve benson.

WestBerkeleyFlats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pack-man, I thought that you kept saying that you weren't interested in the subject?

That is TWICE now you have misquoted me (on purpose?)!

Is that being honest? Is that being "intellectual"?

Is continuing to mangle my name the mark of someone who wants to participate in a rational, civilized discussion?

Isn't it ironic that you accuse ME of not being "intellectual"?

nope!

;^)

Seriously, though, I just found infidels.org earlier this week. <Spock voice> "Fascinating!" </Spock voice>



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2014 06:16PM by moose.

don't bother believers with "facts"... they just wave you away with a wave of thier hands and say, "i am not bothering with you anymore..."

How dare you require "faithiests" to confront facts? Facts are malleable things... they adjust themselves based on who is watching. For example... apples do not fall from trees when god believers or "Gnu-Atheist haters" are near. They are "pushed to the ground" by invisible gnomes. The vast majority of gnomist scholars agree. Even the A-gnomiest scholars agree that the absurdities within the gnomist texts are PROOF that gnoimism is based upon something historical. We fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.

HH =)

p.s. "have at you."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2014 06:26PM by steve benson.

ROFL

But...Steve! He doesn't think magic Jesus existed, so he can't be trusted!

:)

This post represents a perfect example of my response to HUMAN's post, i.e. what happens when we exchange a discussion about substantive issues to a discussion about who has the longest list of credentials, as if somehow that moves the scales of the argument.

Although I have not read Richard Carrier, so cannot comment on anything he might have written, I have read the writings of other "scholars" that Steve has touted on the Board with the intention of supporting his atheist and materialist agenda.

Most recently, I purchased a used copy of G.M. Woerlee's book, Mortal Minds: The Biology of Near Death Experiences, because Steve had quoted from it extensively, and I wanted to find out if Woerlee had anything new or interesting to say on the NDE subject. As a rule, I never critize a writer or poster without a detailed substantive supporting argument, but in this case I will make an exception, since this post is not about NDEs. I read the Woerlee book cover to cover, and understood every word. AND, IN MY JUDGMENT IT WAS UTTER, MISINFORMED NONSENSE. It made no difference what Woerlee's credentials were, the book spoke for itself. And all of Steve's quotations did not reduce its failings, or add to its credibility one iota.

Moreover, I noted that the Woerlee book was published by Prometheus Books, which I believe has never rejected a manuscript denouncing religion, directly or indirectly, regardless of the merits. In short, it is a publisher with an agenda. I also note that the publishers of Carrier's books, which include Prometheus, are for the most part fringe, and include obviously biased publishers, like "The Atheist Press." I also note that Carrier, although advertising himself as a "philosopher," is not cited in the philosophical literature on science, consciousness, or philosohy of religion. A review of Steve's list is much more impressive for its length than its substance.

Not being interested in the "Jesus debate," for reasons I have explained in other posts, and not having read the literature, I do not wish to take sides here. Moreover, I repeat that Carrier's arguments, like anyone elses, stands or falls on the merits alone, not on any lists. But, if one wishes to evaluate Carrier from Steve's list, as Steve appears to want to do, he clearly falls short of a "scholar" having broad academic credibility. (As I do, I might hasten to add, since I have not published anything!)

Finally, there is one thing we might legitimately take note of. If a poster on the Board can do nothing else than throw out ad hominem attacks against people who they disagree with, or endlessly quote "authority" for their position, without the slightest substantive argument, it suggests that they personally do not know the issues, and are more interested in conclusions than arguments. Unfortunately, there are many on the Board who seem to fit this category.

Human's post was thoughtful and well articulated. Even though I disagreed with much of it, I was stimulated by it, and appreciated the opportunity to use it to hone my own thoughts. I wish all such differences could be addressed in such a civilized and considerate manner, without a "gotcha" mentality displaying an animosity that can only be explained as an emotional response to an attack on one's deeply entrenched and immovable views. I make this point as both a reminder to myself as well as a suggestion to others.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Well said.

. . . the non-historical Jesus case (as demonstrated by his three questions quoted above), "Human's" case was quite thoughtful. :)

But thought without research won't get you far.

That's why I thought it might be good to provide "Human" with the citations he apparently could not humanly gather himself. At least it's a start.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 12:33AM by steve benson.

Also pretty sure you did not comprehend them, for the most part. You seem to be pretty hit-and-miss on everything in general Bemis. Your application of reason is capricious and nonsensical. Perhaps you could entertain...ER.. Enlighten us with your epistomological foundation. Perhaps your posts would make some sort of cohesive pattern ??

HH =)

Bravo for specifically pointing out the nature of Carrier's publishers.

Perhaps Steve can go back to copying and pasting his decades old reminiscences about General Conference luncheons.

. . . his findings made available to the reading public by a reputable publishing house in the UK. (its name sourced for you in this same thread).

What I have to do for you around here. You can thank me later.

:)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 12:26AM by steve benson.

After all, even you admit you're not interested in the scholalry issues involved.

OK, then, hiss from the sidelines instead of weighing in on the evidence for the "historical" Jesus (or, better yet, the lack thereof).

After all, it's rather easy to do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 12:05AM by steve benson.

What? No Pulitzer?

Why are the credentials of modern scholars so important? How about the credentials of the gospel authors? How many peer reviewed papers did they publish? How do we know that we can trust them?

If Ehrman can extract truth from the writings of an anonymous, magical thinking plagiarist then surely he can extract some truth from Carrier?

"If Ehrman can extract truth from the writings of an anonymous, magical thinking plagiarist then surely he can extract some truth from Carrier?"

Hehehehe.

HH =)

Heh. Benson pimpin' for Carrier.

Well, someone has got to do it. Somehow with all that (and it ain't much), the poor fella had to take a collection from his atheist friends to publish his book. And still, and this is chutzpah, charge a hundred bucks for it.

Cheers Steve, and may God bless you with a merry Christmas.

Human

(Did I miss something? Did anyone point out a translation or two?)

An ad homonim response. You never disappoint Human. At least not those who agree with you. Neener neener to you too. Do anyone show how Mohamed is false in this thread? Then... There you go. I see your point.

HH =)

This is just jibberish. Human's post was not "ad homonim" or even "ad hominem."

. . . forged "Josephus" quote as "embarrassing." It certainly was--especially for you, since you couldn't cite any historical basis for it being supposed empirical proof that Jesus ever existed.

Face it, "Flats," your case for the "I-really-lived" Jesus just doesn't "ad" up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 12:31AM by steve benson.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't an ad hominem. Maybe I missed it though.

. . . to your clearly uninformed questions regarding Carrier?

Of course not.

That's why I answered them for you, without you even having to request any "pimpable" help from me.

And stop complaining. If you don't want the answers, don't ask the questions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 12:19AM by steve benson.

Obviously HH has never translated any Latin either

who probably thinks a dative plural is something to get excited over.

Those still earnestly wishing to dismiss Carrier's anti-"historical Jesus" research as somehow being non-academic and non-seriously considered, may be interested to know (or maybe not, if facts still don't mean all that much to them) that Carrier's work on the make-believe, non-historical character otherwise known as "Jesus" has, in fact, been peer-reviewed and is now available through a reputable academic publishing house.

Oh, my gawd, is there no help for Jesus-believer's son?

Carrier notes this nettlesome fact in his article, "Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?" (Given this "Recovery from Mormonism" forum, it is interested to read how Carrier equates Jesus' alleged "historicity" to Joseph Smith's Angel fairy tale of the Angel Moroni supposedly verifying the purported "historicity" of the Book of Mormon). Carrier writes:

"[Synposis]: A superbly qualified scholar will insist some piece of evidence exists, or does not exist, and I am surprised that I have to show them the contrary. And always this phantom evidence (or an assurance of its absence) is in defense of the historicity of Jesus. This should teach us how important it is to stop repeating the phrase 'the overwhelming consensus says . . . ' Because that consensus is based on false beliefs and assumptions, a lot of them inherited unknowingly from past Christian faith assumptions in reading or discussing the evidence, which even secular scholars failed to check before simply repeating them as certainly the truth . . .

"Last year I had an erudite and friendly debate on London radio with an excellent and well-respected professor of New Testament studies, in which he claimed that in 1 Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul wrote that he received the gospel he summarizes there 'from those who were in Christ before him.' Indeed this professor insisted that 'from those who were in Christ before him' was in the text. This was perplexing, because I knew that wasn’t the case. In fact, quite the opposite. Paul rather conspicuously never says this in any of his letters. He even explicitly denies it in one (Galatians 1). My opponent was a bit non-plussed when we looked at the text, and to his astonishment, the phrase he was sure was there, was not.

"This is not an isolated story. This has happened to me countless times. . . . It’s time to rethink our assumptions, and look at the evidence anew.

"There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with Ph.D.s in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I am one of them. And I have recently published the first-ever peer-reviewed academic study making the case for this conclusion. ('On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt was published this year by the University of Sheffield (Sheffield-Phoenix, 2014). It continues the case I began in a prior peer-reviewed book, 'Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus' (Prometheus Books, 2012), on why the methods employed in Jesus studies today are not logically valid, and what must replace them.

". . . I . . . here summarize the reasons for suspecting we’ve been wrong all along about how the Christian religion began. . . . [A]s Philip Davies recently said, 'a recognition that [Jesus’s] existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability.'

"I think it is more likely that Jesus began in the Christian mind as a celestial being (like an archangel), believed or claimed to be revealing divine truths through revelations (and, by bending the ear of prophets in previous eras, through hidden messages planted in scripture). Christianity thus began the same way Islam and Mormonism did: by their principal apostles (Mohammed and Joseph Smith) claiming to have received visions from their religion’s 'actual' teacher and founder, in each case an angel (Gabriel dictated the Koran, MORONI PROVIDED THE BOOK OF MORMON).

"On this model, Christianity, as a Jewish sect, began when someone (most likely Cephas, perhaps backed by his closest devotees) claimed this 'Jesus' had at last revealed that he had tricked the Devil by becoming incarnate and being crucified by the Devil (in the region of the heavens ruled by Devil), thereby atoning for all of Israel’s sins so the Jerusalem temple cult no longer mattered, the sins of Israel could no longer hold back God’s promise and the end of the world could soon begin. On this theory, Christians did not go looking for proof-texts after their charismatic leader died, but actually conjured this angelic being’s salvific story from a pesher-like reading of scripture . . . .

"It would be several decades later when subsequent members of this [Christian] cult, after the world had not yet ended as claimed, started allegorizing the gospel of this angelic being by placing him in earth history as a divine man, as a commentary on the gospel and its relation to society and the Christian mission.

"The same had already been done to other celestial gods and heroes, who were being transported into earth history all over the Greco-Roman world, a process now called 'Euhemerization,' after the author Euhemerus, who began the trend in the 4th century B.C. by converting the celestial Zeus and Uranus into ordinary human kings and placing them in past earth history, claiming they were 'later' deified (in a book ironically titled 'Sacred Scripture'). Other gods then underwent the same transformation, from Romulus (originally the celestial deity Quirinus) to Osiris (originally the heavenly lord whom pharaohs claimed to resemble, he was eventually transformed into a historical pharaoh himself).

"Contrary to an oft-repeated myth in contemporary scholarship, before Christianity began both Romulus and Osiris were believed by their devotees to be slain deities subsequently resurrected to heavenly glory (as were many others of the type, from Zalmoxis to Dionysus to Adonis to Inanna), who now could bring glory or salvation to their followers. . . . [For example], each year Osiris descends and becomes incarnate and is slain not on earth, but in the lower heavens, and then rises from the dead and reascends to power in the upper heavens, having gained power over death by this cosmic ritual, which he then shares with his earthly devotees. In the earliest redaction we can reconstruct of the Ascension of Isaiah, this appears to be exactly what was imagined to happen for Jesus, only once for all, not yearly.[

"On this theory, when Paul says 'the scriptures' tell us that Jesus 'died' and 'was buried' and only then was he ever 'seen' by Cephas and the apostles (1 Cor. 15:3-5), he means exactly what he says. Just as in this and all other summaries of the gospel Paul provides, . . . there is no mention of a ministry, or of Jesus being seen by anyone (much less anyone taught and hand-picked by him in life), because these things did not yet exist in Christian conception. They would be allegorical fictions contrived later by the authors of the Gospels. . . . Paul wrote [that] the death and burial of Jesus were known only from hidden messages in scripture, just as Romans 16:25-26 says. . . . [T]his knowledge was facilitated by this Jesus then at last appearing to the apostles to inform them of all this, and what it meant. In fact, being thus visited by the celestial Christ is what secured one’s status as an apostle. . . .

"Just as Satan was declared the Archon 'of the powers of the air (Eph. 2:2) and the God “of this Age” (2 Cor. 4:4), so when Jesus is said to have been crucified by the 'Archons of this Age' (1 Cor. 2:8), we might be seeing what would later be described in the earliest redaction of the Ascension of Isaiah: a reference to Satan and his demons crucifying Jesus, not the Jews and Romans. And just as Adam was in some accounts buried in the heavens (as in chapter 40 of the Greek text of the 'Life of Adam and Eve'), so possibly was Jesus imagined to have been. The Incarnation, in a body of Davidic flesh, [and] still would have been imagined as necessary to fulfill scripture. But, as depicted in the Ascension of Isaiah, this would have happened in 'the sky.'

"This 'Jesus' would most likely have been the same archangel identified by Philo of Alexandria as already extant in Jewish theology. Philo knew this figure by all of the attributes Paul already knew Jesus by: the firstborn son of God, the celestial 'image of God,' and God’s agent of creation. . He was also God’s celestial high priest and God’s 'Logos.' And Philo says this being was identified as the figure named 'Jesus' in Zechariah 6.

"So, it would appear that already before Christianity there were Jews aware of a celestial being named 'Jesus' who had all of the attributes the earliest Christians were associating with their celestial being named Jesus. They, therefore, had no need of a historical man named 'Jesus.' All they needed was to imagine this celestial Jesus undergoing a heavenly incarnation and atoning death, in order to accomplish soteriologically what they needed, in order to no longer rely upon the Jewish temple authorities for their salvation.

"Such is the theory. Why might we conclude it’s the more likely explanation? Because the sequence of evidence aligns with it. As Bart Ehrman himself has recently confessed, the earliest documentation we have shows Christians regarded Jesus to be a pre-existent celestial angelic being.] Though Ehrman struggles to try and insist this is not how the cult began, it is hard to see the evidence any other way, once we abandon Christian faith assumptions about how to read the texts. The earliest Epistles only ever refer to Jesus as a celestial being revealing truths through visions and messages in scripture. There are no references in them to Jesus preaching (other than from heaven), or being a preacher, having a ministry, performing miracles, or choosing or having disciples, or communicating by any means other than revelation and scripture, or ever even being on earth. This is completely reversed in the Gospels. [These] were written decades later and are manifestly fictional. Yet, all subsequent historicity claims, in all subsequent texts, are based on those Gospels.

"We also have to remember that all other evidence from the first 80 years of Christianity's development was conveniently not preserved (not even in quotation or refutation). . . . [A] great deal more evidence was forged in its place (we know of over 40 Gospels, half a dozen Acts, scores of fake Epistles, wild legends and doctored passages). Thus, the evidence has passed through a very pervasive and destructive filter favoring the views of the later Church, in which it was vitally necessary to salvation to insist that Jesus was a historical man who really was crucified by Pontius Pilate (as we find obsessively insisted upon in the letters of Ignatius). Thus, to uncover the truth of how the [Christian] cult began, we have to look for clues, and not just gullibly trust the literary productions of the 2nd century.

"Jesus belongs to a fraternity of worshipped demi-gods peculiar to the Greco-Roman era and region. All were 'savior gods' (literally so called). They were all the 'son' of God (occasionally his 'daughter'). They all undergo a 'passion' (literally the same word in the Greek, 'patheôn'), which was some suffering or struggle (sometimes even resulting in death), through which they all obtain victory over death, which they share in some fashion with their followers. They all had stories about them set in human history on earth. Yet, none of them ever actually existed. Jesus can be shown to belong to several other typically mythical classes of person as well, unlike almost every other figure of antiquity (even the greatest of emperors and kings). These people were, more often than not, not historical. Yet, all were depicted as such in stories written by their believers. We cannot therefore simply declare Jesus the unusual exception. We need a reason. We need evidence. And when we look for it, it dissolves.

"No evidence outside the Bible can be shown to be based on anything but the Gospels or Christian testimony derived from the Gospels. And inside the Bible we have:

"(1) forgeries (which, being fake, cannot count as evidence);

"(2) the earliest Epistles that seem strangely silent or ambiguous as to the earthly existence of Jesus; and

"(3) the most suspiciously mythical Gospels. Not exactly good evidence to go by.

"Of course, there is much to debate. When Paul twice refers to 'Brothers of the Lord,' does he mean biological kin, or baptized Christians (who were all Brothers of the Lord: Rom. 8:15-29)?

"When Paul says Jesus 'came to be' (genomenos) from the 'sperm of David, ' does he mean descended from David, or manufactured by God, literally from the sperm of David?

"When Paul says Jesus 'came to be' ('genomenos') 'from a woman,' does he mean literally, or allegorically (as in Gal. 4:24)?

"When Paul says Jesus was 'tempted in every way,' does he mean as an ordinary man, or merely resisting the temptation to seize absolute divine power (as in Phil. 2:5-9)?

"When Paul says Jesus was 'declared' the 'Son of God in power' from his resurrection, is he referring to a post-hoc rationalization of a cult leader’s death, or to God’s heavenly re-bestowment of a humbled archangel’s prior status?

"We need to ask these questions because the old way of looking at the evidence does not fit so well as has been thought. And even among secular scholars, this has, until now, been driven by Christian faith assumptions, rather than [by] a new and genuinely objective look at what the evidence tells us.

"When we look, instead, without those assumptions [and, instead, at the possiblity] that Christianity may have been started by a revealed Jesus rather than a historical Jesus, [we see that this] is corroborated by at least three things:

"[T]he sequence of evidence shows precisely that development from celestial revealed Jesus in the Epistles, to a historical ministry in the Gospels decades later),

"[A]ll similar savior cults from the period have the same backstory (a cosmic savior, later historicized); and

"[T]he original Christian Jesus (in the Epistles of Paul) sounds exactly like the Jewish archangel Jesus, who certainly did not exist.

"So. when it comes to a historical Jesus, maybe we no longer need that hypothesis."

("Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?," by Richard Carrier, 29 August 2014, emphasis added, at: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5730)


This research by Carrier has now been published under the title, "On the Historicity of Jesus," having been subjected to peer review, as he explains:

"My new book, 'On the Historicity of Jesus,' has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (United Kingdom).

"I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well. . . .

" . . . I believe this will be the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review. That lends considerable weight to the work and will gain it significant academic attention in the field. Indeed, apart from Brodie’s brief confessional treatise supportive of myth (but not comprehensively arguing for it), . . . I think this will be the first pro-'Jesus myth' book of any kind published by a university press in the last 50 years."

"To date, the best case presented for this hypothesis is by amateur historian and classics graduate Earl Doherty (in his two books, 'The Jesus Puzzle' and 'Jesus: Neither God Nor Man'). My own . . . book, . . .inspired by [Doherty's] work, [is] the first making the case for this hypothesis to pass academic peer review."

("Update on 'Historicity of Jesus.'" by Richard Carrier, 17 July 2013, at: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090; and "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus," by Richard Carrier, at: http://www.strangenotions.com/questioning-the-historicity-of-jesus/)


Sheffield-Phoenix announced its June 2014 publication of " Carrier's book with the folllowing announcement:

"The assumption that Jesus existed as a historical person has occasionally been questioned in the course of the last hundred years or so, but any doubts that have been raised have usually been put to rest in favor of imagining a blend of the historical, the mythical and the theological in the surviving records of Jesus.

"Carrier re-examines the whole question and finds compelling reasons to suspect the more daring assumption is correct. He lays out extensive research on the evidence for Jesus and the origins of Christianity and poses the key questions that must now be answered if the historicity of Jesus is to survive as a dominant paradigm.

"Carrier contrasts the most credible reconstruction of a historical Jesus with the most credible theory of Christian origins if a historical Jesus did not exist. Such a theory would posit that the Jesus figure was originally conceived of as a celestial being known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture; then stories placing this being in earth history were crafted to communicate the claims of the gospel allegorically; such stories eventually came to be believed or promoted in the struggle for control of the Christian churches that survived the tribulations of the first century.

"Carrier finds the latter theory more credible than has been previously imagined. He explains why it offers a better explanation for all the disparate evidence surviving from the first two centuries of the Christian era. He argues that we need a more careful and robust theory of cultural syncretism between Jewish theology and politics of the second-temple period and the most popular features of pagan religion and philosophy of the time.

"For anyone intent on defending a historical Jesus, this is the book to challenge. . . .

"Richard Carrier (PhD Columbia in ancient history) lives in the San Francisco area. His previous book is 'Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus' (2012)."

("On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt," by Richard Carrier, under "Sheffield Press: Scholarly Publications in Biblical Studies," at: http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=264)


The peer-reviewed status of Carrier's "Jesus myth" findings is also confirmed here:

""Jesus myth theory'--variously called 'Christ myth theory' and the 'non-existence hypothesis,' among other names-- is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them.

"However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book, 'Jesus: Myth Or History,' at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned, the 'myth theory' was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account, but rather: 'What the "myth theory" denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." . . .

"The theory, in its broadest definition, can be traced as far back as the concept of Docetism and Celsus (around 180 CE) and there is a possible hint of it in Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho,' though its modern revival goes back only to the 1790's with the ideas of Constantin-François Volney' and Charles François Dupuis. The theory has been supported by a number of influential thinkers . . . . Bertrand Russell expressed some doubt about the existence of Jesus, though he did not fully embrace the 'myth theory.' The idea seems to have gained a considerable amount of popularity among the secular community in recent years.

"In June 2014, Richard Carrier's 'On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt' [Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 1-909697-49-2] became 'the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review'"

(Jesus Myth Theory," at: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory)


On hearing the bad news that Carrier's research on the palpable lack of "historicty" for "Jesus" has, indeed, been peer-reviewed, Christians have been fit to be tied (f not crucified). As one asks anxiously:

"Dr. James F. McGrath, a New Testament Professor at Butler University mentioned that Dr. Richard Carrier, an ancient historian and also the new breed of 'Jesus Mythicism,' is getting a book published that has passed peer-review called 'On the Historical Jesus.'

*Link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/07/finally-there-will-be-a-peer-reviewed-case-for-mythicism.html

"I'm a little bit worried because:

"1) How on earth could his book pass peer-review? I mean the 'Jesus mythicism' movement is virtually disproven. It would be like arguing that the earth is 6000 years old. There's just so much evidence against the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was based on myth and legend.

"2) I thought that if something is 'peer-reviewed' that it was considered factual? How are we supposed to know what is factual and not factual, even if it passes 'peer-reveiw'?"

"3) Should we be worried? Or is this just another book? Am I misreading the article wrong?

"Please answer, I'm very upset and discouraged because I think Richard Carrier is very wrong and pushing an agenda to the internet atheists."

("To my Christian Brothers and Sisters: Richard Carrier's Peer-Reviewed Book: On the Historical Jesus?." at: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrSbDqZ4pRU.EUAjIBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbG0yMWo2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1NNRTYxMl8x?qid=20140212104306AAzmHgX)


Calm down, ye hysterical historical Xtians (although that may be an understandably hard thing to do, given that your "historical Savior" is now being seriously historically savaged).

McGrath (himself a critic of some of Carrier's conclusions, whil a suppoter pf others) takes a more steady view:

"I’ve long described Richard Carrier as the last, best hope for [Jesus] mythicism. While other mythicists have been content to self-publish shoddy pseudo-scholarship online or elsewhere, Carrier has been a voice of sanity, recognizing that a scholarly consensus is not something to be treated lightly, and that, if there is to be a serious case for mythicism, it needs to be made by trained scholars approaching the matter in the appropriate scholarly manner.

"His book, . . . titled, 'On the Historicity of Jesus,' has passed peer review and so can be expected in print within the next half-and-a-year or so."

(James McGrath, "Finally, There Will Be a Peer-Reviewed Case for Mythicism," 18 July 2013, at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/07/finally-there-will-be-a-peer-reviewed-case-for-mythicism.html


For concerned Xtians who don't know what "peer review" means, McGrath goes on to define what the term:

"'Peer review' assesses whether work is undertaken using appropriate scholarly methods of analysis and argumentation. Even then it isn't foolproof by any means. But it isn't an assessment of whether the argument is correct, only whether it is scholarship. Every PhD is an attempt to find something new to say about a topic. Most of them turn out to be wrong. But if we couldn't even get them published and read by other scholars, then the few ideas that will in fact pan out under closer scrutiny would be lost, too. I think that many people outside of academia really don't understand how this system works, and how impressively well it works for all its flaws and shortcomings."

(James McGrath, posted in commentary section under "Finally, There Will Be a Peer-Reviewed Case for Mythicism," 10 months ago, at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/07/finally-there-will-be-a-peer-reviewed-case-for-mythicism.html; for McGrath's mixed assessment of Carrier's book, "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus [2012" Prometheus Books], see; McGrath,, "Review of Richard C. Carrier, Proving History," 7 August 2012, at: w.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/08/review-of-richard-c-carrier-proving-history.html)

*****


Regardless of how earnestly Carrier's critics attempt to dismiss his scholarly work, it has passed peer review" and has subsequently been published by a reputable academic press.

Lordy, what to do? Jesus, Jesus, where are you?

:)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 12:21AM by steve benson.